Member Info for Nanogeddon

"The info was all there. My opinion was based on the info and my own experience. The outcome wasn't a surprise."
Stt1 you are right. There were clear indicators that LOAM's opinion of the value was around the 30p mark.
That is not the problem, and I think you also know that.

The problem is BT communications in ALL presentations. Large sums of money that this settlement in no way reflects, AND the promise that a settlement would NOT be agreed unless it brought fair value.

Well said Henry. I appreciate you making a stand. I will be writing to the FCA also.

Thanks Ecclescake!

"Please let us know what the FCA say when you report that Nanoco won only $150mn, especially if whoever takes your call can keep a straight face".

GigWitty your comments are getting more and more idiotic.

I appreciate the recommendation on SED Feeks... You have given a lot of informed advice on this forum so I will look into it.

They probably asked Samsung to defer the second payment to excuse them from releasing the dividend. It preserves cash in case they don't get to breakeven this year.

"All the disappointment here comes from
1. not understanding the RNS announcements properly
2. Trying to fill spaces between RNS announcements with conjecture that leads to myths that get lives of their own"

Incorrect Gig and as always you know that you are being disingenuous.

I haven't bought any new shares in months. I have been in since 2017 and significantly since 2021.

I am NOT disappointed by the settlement due to having misunderstood the RNS.

I AM disappointed BY the recent RNS BECAUSE it is hugely misaligned to the ALL of the messages that BT himself gave at NUMEROUS presentations.

Stop deflecting from the points that you know to be true. Silly boy.

Thanks Ecclescakes... Don't Philips get their displays from Samsung using our tech? Please tell me I'm wrong.

I don't believe that the funder pulled the plug. Nanoco could have said you won't get any money then, and furthermore we will publicise this the matter and it will destroy your business model.
BT either bottled it at the last minute to fund his salary, or he misled us about the litigation value and lied to us about his settlement criteria.

Has anyone noticed that the German injunction has suddenly been forgotten, and the excuse for settling was years of protracted appeals in the US?

Claire, I don't see any limitation of 5 years. Please can you paste the text that you are seeing and asterisk around it?
Thanks

I'm not as well 'resourced'. I wasn't on the BoD of Nanoco. Idiot.

No-one claimed there was no risk GigWitt. You know that.
There was one thing that was nonsensical: The misalignment between the price at which LOAM was willing to sell at and the litigation value that Brian Tenner had clearly communicated.
It was nonsensical. I found it impossible to reconcile my views - torn between the fact that LOAM had some privileged information (and yet was selling low) and the messages that Brian Tenner had clearly communicated.
It all makes sense now. LOAM knew the value (within a margin) because Turcan was on the BoD. Brian was pumping the narrative that the litigation was worth multiples of the share price, and he wouldn't accept less than fair value for the whole world and for all time.

You know this is true Gigs. I honestly don't know why I'm even writing this to you because you will dismiss it and pretend that 'zilch return' has always been communicated to us from the very beginning.

Thanks JBongo. Relieved to see I'm not completely cancelled :)
That's a few more quid in the bank... sigh.

The settlement is structured as a $65m license agreement (settlement) and $85m for the sale of 2 non-core patents.

Could it be that this was done purely for tax efficiency purposes, the patents being irrelevant but allowing profits to be deferred into future years?

Thanks to anyone who can advise and who hasn't blocked me for moaning :D

If I were the BoD and wanted to really protect the cash runway, I would ask Samsung to defer half the money until 2024. If they got it now then they would have to pay some out as a dividend... Better to make that decision next year... Keeping ones options open and all....

Up the taxes on those corporations! Maybe a windfall tax here... after all, Nanoco didn't really think they were going to get all those profits did they?!

I would be interested in seeing an investigation done also. This stinks.

Oh I'm sorry Gig. BT didn't outline those caveats when he was spouting off about how much money we were going to get.

Don't talk non-sense. Loads of people bought in on Friday 6th Jan. I didn't buy any more that day, but there were many new entrants I'm sure.

We ALLOWED ourselves to BELIEVE what TENNER told us.